L  B 


UC-NRLF 


VJ 


GIFT   OF 


The  Normal  Seminar 

EDUCATIONAL  NUMBER 


EDITED  AT  THE 

STATE   NORMAL   SCHOOL 

Cheney,  Washington 


Ent«-red  October  22,   1904,  at  Cheney,  WashingJotVss  'secoirt  tl3ss  7n-ait,er .^  Under  apl  of  Congres 

of  July  16.  1894." 


OLYMPIA  : 

FRANK  M.  LAMBORN    <^^^P    PUBLIC  PRINTER 
1917 


u 


A 


4^'  s- 

*£/ 


EXPLANATORY  NOTE 

This  pamphlet  contains  the  major  part  of  the  thesis  submitted 
by  Mr.  Virgil  E.  Dickson  to  the  Educational  Department  of  the 
Leland  Stanford  Junior  University  in  fulfillment  of  certain  require- 
ments for  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  in  Education.  The  study 
was  made  at  the  University  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Lewis  M. 
Terman. 

Mr.  Dickson  has  been  for  five  years  Superintendent  of  the 
State  Normal  Training  School  at  Cheney,  Washington.  He  made 
this  study  while  on  leave  of  absence,  hence,  we  publish  this  thesis 
(with  permission  of  Dr.  Terman)  believing  that  it  will  be  helpful 
and  suggestive  to  others  who  may  be  struggling  in  this  new  but 
important  field  of  educational  reorganization. 

N.  D.  SHOWALTER,  President, 
State  Normal  School,  Cheney,  Wash. 


INTRODUCTION 

During  the  past  few  years  much  has  been  written  about  the 
individual  differences  in  children  found  in  the  same  grade  and  in 
the  same  class  room  of  our  elementary  schools.  The  age  differences 
are  among  those  most  commonly  emphasized.  The  data  concerning 
age  .are  among  those  most  easily  secured  and  are  apt  to  be  reason- 
ably accurate.  Many  interesting  problems  have  developed  out  of 
the  study  of  the  over-age  children.  After  a  rather  extensive  study 
in  1908  Ayers  reports*  that  "on  an  average  one-third  of  the  children 
in  our  city  schools  are  over  age  for  their  grade."  Commenting  upon 
the  mixture  of  bright  children,  normal  children,  and  retarded  chil- 
dren in  the  same  class  he  says,  "From  the  standpoint  of  the  school 
the  vital  thing  is  the  fact  that  classes  are  now  composed  of  hetero- 
geneous elements.  The  child  of  nine  years  acts  and  thinks  differ- 
ently from  the  child  of  seven  years.  Put  the  two  in  the  same  class 
and  the  work  of  the  teacher  is  increased,  the  amount  of  attention 
she  can  give  to  each  diminished,  and  the  effect  of  the  teaching  les- 
sened. From  the  standpoint  of  the  child  the  essential  evil  of  re- 
tardation is  that  it  lessens  the  prospect  of  securing  a  reasonably 
complete  elementary  education." 

From  another  study  conducted  by  G.  D.  Strayer  in  1911f  we 
find  that  in  the  schools  of  133  cities  of  the  United  States,  38%  of 
the  boys  and  32%  of  the  girls  are  over  age.  After  citing  the  fact 
that  the  1st  grade  of  the  city  schools  of  Los  Angeles  has  in  it  2 
boys  5  years  of  age;  1,237,  6  years  of  age;  835,  7  years  of  age;  328, 
8  years  of  age;  95,  9  years  of  age;  49,  10  years  of  age;  19,  11  years 
of  age;  8,  12  years  of  age;  4,  13  years  of  age;  2,  14  years  of  age; 
and  1,  15  years  of  age,  Strayer  mildly  observes,  "When  you  find 
in  one  grade  children  from  8  to  15  years  of  age,  the  work  of  the 
teacher  can  not,  under  such  conditions,  be  as  effective  as  it  should 
be." 

That  these  differences  have  not  been  exaggerated,  and  that  they 
do  not  represent  exceptional  conditions  can  be  discovered  easily  by 
anyone  who  will  investigate  the  average  class  rooms  of  almost  any 
system  of  schools  in  our  country. 

*  "Laggards  In  Our  Schools,"  by  Leonard  P.  Ayers. 

tU.  S.  Bureau  of  Education  Bulletin  1911  No.  5— Whole  No.  451. 


Seminar 


Chapter  I 
THE  PURPOSE  AND  PLAN  OF  THE  PRESENT  STUDY 

So  far  as  the  writer  has  been  able  to  discover  there  has  been 
no  extensive  study  made  of  the  individual  differences  of  children 
found  in  any  particular  grade,  due  to  the  differences  in  mental  level. 
It  appears  to  us  that  such  differences  are  apt  to  be  the  most  logical 
point  of  attack  for  some  of  our  most  serious  school  problems. 

» 
Purpose 

The  first  object  of  this  study  is  to  discover,  by  means  of  psy- 
chological tests,  the  mental  ages  of  children  in  the  first  grade  of 
public  school  work — in  other  words,  to  discover  the  quality  of  the 
clay  which  confronts  the  teacher  when  she  is  ready  to  begin  her 
work.  This  quality  is  not  always  evident  from  external  observation 
and  is  sometimes  very  difficult  to  determine  by  means  of  the  com- 
mon form  of  analysis  and  test. 

The  second  object  of  the  study  is  to  make  a  comparison  of  the 
mental  age  with  other  data  for  each  child  in  order  to  determine  the 
classification  and  the  treatment  which  best  fits  his  needs  at  the 
present  time. 

The  third  object  of  the  study  is  to  offer  predictions  as  to  the 
probable  advancement  of  each  child  through  the  primary  grades, — 
this  prediction  being  based  primarily  on  the  potential  mental  ca- 
pacity as  shown  by  the  mental  test.  It  is  hoped  that  many  of  these 
children  may  be  found  two  or  three  years  hence  and  the  results  of 
these  predictions  checked.  (The  tables  for  these  predictions  are  so 
extensive  that  they  cannot  be  published  in  this  pamphlet  but  may  be 
found  in  the  original  thesis  in  the  library  at  Stanford  University.) 

Plans  and  Method  of  Procedure 

The  work  of  gathering  data  and  making  tests  began  the  first 
week  after  the  holiday  vacation  in  January,  1917.  Most  of  the 
children  were  just  then  entering  school. 

The  first  problem  was  to  find  schools  in  which  the  superintend- 
ent and  the  teachers  were  willing  to  cooperate  in  gathering  data 
and  in  allowing  the  tests-  to  be  made  under  favorable  conditions. 
The  next  problem  was  to  get  a  sufficient  number  of  rooms  to  repre- 
sent the  various  types  commonly  found  in  school  work,  and  to  find 
them  within  twenty  miles  from  the  University.  The  latter  point 
was  necessary  in  order  that  the  numerous  visits  required  to  do  the 
testing  and  to  gather  the  data  might  neither  cost  too  much  nor 
consume  too  much  time. 

After  the  plan  was  laid  before  the  superintendent  and  the 
teacher  concerned  and  they  were  found  willing  to  cooperate  in  the 
study,  the  teacher  was  asked  to  fill  out  certain  blanks  with  supple- 
mentary data.  (To  be  explained  under  another  heading.)  The 


Educational  Number,  1917 


teacher  was  also  requested  to  say  nothing,  or  as  little  as  possible 
about  the  study.  It  was  entered  as  a  regular  part  of  the  school 
work  and  was  to  arouse  as  little  as  possible  of  curiosity  or  com- 
ment. When  the  time  for  testing  came  the  teacher  simply  said, 
"Children  this  is  Mr.  D.  and  he  has  some  pictures  and  blocks  to 
show  you  and  some  questions  to  ask  you.  Each  one  of  you  will 
have  a  chance  to  go  with  him  to  the  library  (or  the  room  given 
for  the  testing)  to  see  his  pictures,  but  only  one  can  go  at  a  time. 
Who  wants  to  go  first?"  The  result  was  always  the  same.  Children 
vied  with  one  another  for  an  early  chance  to  see  the  pictures.  The 
experimenter  usually  returned  to  the  room  with  the  child  who  had 
been  tested  and  took  the  next  subject  with  him  to  the  testing  room. 
On  the  way  conversation  with  the  child  nearly  always  established 
a  naturalness  and  freedom  which  made  it  possible  to  begin  the  test 
at  once.  If  the  child  still  seemed  timid  when  the  room  was  reached, 
the  accidental  dropping  of  the  pennies  or  the  blocks  or  other  of  the 
test  materials  to  scatter  over  the  floor  brought  assistance  from  the 
little  worker  in  such  a  way  that  rapport  was  quickly  established  and 
the  tests  were  well  under  way  and  a  natural  interest  awakened  in 
what  was  to  follow,  by  the  time  the  material  was  reassembled.  Not 
a  child  of  the  150  tested  held  aloof  for  more  than  a  few  minutes. 
Some  indeed,  became  veritable  chatterboxes  to  be  held  in  restraint, 
and  some  didn't  want  to  leave  when  the  tests  were  finished. 

Who  Were  Tested 

The  children  tested  embrace  all  those  found  working  in  the 
first  grade  in  five  different  school  rooms  in  different  vicinities.  These 
rooms  were  selected  to  include  what  would  appear  to  constitute  a 
normal  variety  of  first  grade  conditions.  Two  rooms  are  in  Red- 
wood City.  The  children  here  represent  all  social  classes.  In  one 
room  most  of  the  children  are  of  foreign  descent — chiefly  Spanish 
and  Italian.  The  other  room  represents  a  common  mixture  of  races 
with  American  predominating.  One  room  is  in  the  town  of  Santa 
Clara  where  the  conditions  are  similar  to  those  of  Redwood  City. 
The  children  in  this  room  are  chiefly  of  foreign  descent  but  intro- 
duce the  Portuguese  element  as  well  as  the  Spanish  and  the  Italian. 
One  room  is  in  Palo  Alto,  a  University  town  of  5,000  inhabitants. 
The  children  here  are  from  the  middle  and  upper  social  classes  and 
represent  chiefly  American  parentage.  One  room  is  in  Los  Altos 
which  is  a  well-to-do  residential  district.  Most  of  the  children  in 
this  room  are  of  American  descent.  This  room  has  in  it  three 
grades:  1st,  2nd,  and  3rd.  Only  the  14  children  working  in  the 
first  grade  were  tested.  In  all,  the  study  embraces  150  children — 
41  from  the  high  1st,  and  109  from  the  low  1st  grade.  Most  of 
those  in  the  low  1st  were  tested  within  six  weeks  of  the  time  of 
their  entrance  into  school.  No  one,  however,  was  tested  within  three 
days  of  the  time  he  entered  school. 


The  Xormal  Seminar 


How  the  Testing  Was  Done 

Each  child  was  tested  alone  in  a  quiet  room.  The  Stanford 
Revision  of  the  Binet-Simon  Scale  was  used*.  Sufficient  time  was 
taken  to  give  the  complete  scale  and  to  extend  the  tests  well  above 
and  well  below  the  average  mental  level  which  the  child  seemed 
to  show.  Extreme  care  was  taken  that  the  tests  be  both  given  and 
graded  according  to  the  standards  set  for  this  series.  Previous  to 
the  time  of  beginning  this  study  the  writer  had  taken  a  course  in 
Mental  Testing  under  Dr.  Lewis  M.  Terman  and  had  tested  approxi- 
mately 100  children  under  his  direction.  The  tests,  therefore,  will 
follow  closely  the  standards  as  set  by  Professor  Terman. 

Supplementary  Data 

Each  teacher  entered  the  study  in  the  spirit  of  hearty  coopera- 
tion. Hours  of  time  were  spent  by  each  in  order  that  the  supple- 
mentary data  concerning  the  children  might  be  as  accurate  and  as 
scientific  as  possible.  For  the  points  which  required  rating  or  grad- 
ing the  teacher  usually  took  four  or  five  weeks  to  study  the  child 
after  the  blanks  were  submitted  and  before  the  ratings  were  made. 
Following  are  the  points  upon  which  the  teachers  gave  estimates 
and  collected  data: 

Name  of  the  pupil;  grade  (high  or  low);  age  in  years  and 
months;  date  of  entering  school;  quality  of  school  work  each  child 
is  doing  rated  on  a  scale  of  five;*  teacher's  estimate  of  the  child's 
intelligence  as  compared  with  average  children  of  the  same  age,  this 
also  rated  on  the  scale  of  five,  f occupation  of  the  father;  nationality 
of  the  father;  nationality  of  the  mother. 

On  another  blank  the  teacher  was  asked  to  rate  each  child, 
using  the  scale  of  five,  on  the  following  twenty-four  traits  of  per- 
sonality: 

(1)  Power  to  give  sustained  attention,  (2)  persistence,  (3) 
social  adaptability,  (4)  leadership,  (5)  initiative,  6)  evenness  of 
temper,  (7)  emotional  self-control,  (8)  physical  self-control,  (9) 
will  power,  (10)  cheerfulness,  (11)  courage,  (12)  sense  of  humor, 
(13)  obedience,  (14)  conscientiousness,  (15)  dependability,  (16)  in- 
tellectual modesty,  (17)  unselfishness,  (18)  cooperativeness,  (19) 
speed,  (20)  industry,  (21)  personal  appearance,  (22)  popularity 
among  fellows,  (23)  talkativeness,  (24)  accuracy. 

*  Found    in    "The    Measurement    of    Intelligence,"    by    Dr.    Lewis    M. 
Terman;  published  by  Houghton-Mifflin  Co. 

t  1 — very  superior  ;  2 — superior  ;  3 — average  ;  4 — inferior  ;  5 — very  in- 
ferior. 


Educational  Number,  191 


Chapter  II 
THE  DIFFERENCES  THAT  WERE  DISCOVERED 

It  is  thought  best  to  give  each  child  a  number  and  each  room 
a  letter  by  which  each  shall  be  known  throughout  the  study.  The 
key  giving  the  proper  name  associated  with  each  is  in  the  possession 
of  the  Educational  Department  of  Stanford  University. 

The  tables  on  the  following  pages  are  arranged  to  portray  cer- 
tain facts  and  differences  discovered  by  the  study.  Very  little  dis- 
cussion of  the  tables  will  be  given  in  this  chapter,  but  the  facts  will 
be  analyzed  in  some  detail  in  connection  with  chapter  three. 

Table  No.  1  —  Room  A 


Number 
of 
Child 

Sex 

Age 

Mental 
Age 

I.  Q. 

School 
Work 

Teacher's 
Estimate 
of  Intel. 

Gr. 

Time 
in 
School 

Nation- 
ality 

1 

b 

5-10 

6-10 

117 

21 

2 

L 

N  E 

2 

b 

5-9 

6-6 

113 

2 

2 

L 

I 

N  E 

3  
4  
5  

6 

b 

§ 

g- 

5-10 
6-8 
5-11 
5-10 

6-0 

7-0 
6-2 
6-0 

103 
105 
104 

103 

3 

3 
3 
3 

3 
3 

3 
3    ' 

L 
H 
L 
L 

I 

Am. 

N.  E. 
I. 
j 

7  
8  
9  

b 

S 
g 

flW» 

6-8 

7-3 

6-4 
6-10 
7-2 

105 
102 

99 

3 
3 
3 

3 
3 
3 

L 
L 
H 

i 

li 

N.  E. 
N.  E. 
A 

10  . 

g 

6^-7 

6-4 

96 

3 

3 

L 

J 

j 

11  
12  
13  

b 
b 
b 

7-7 
6-8 
7-4 

7-5 
6-8 
7-0 

98 

100 
95 

3 
3 

4 

3 
3 
4 

H 
L 
H 

li 

li 

A. 
I. 

N  E 

14. 

g 

7-0 

6-6 

92 

4 

4 

jj 

11 

A 

15  
16  

17 

b 

8 

6-4 
6-7 
6-9 

5-7 
6-0 

6-2 

88 
91 
91 

3 
3 
3 

3 
3 
3 

L 
L 
L 

1 
1 

1 

I. 
P. 
A 

18  . 

b 

7-8 

6KLO 

89 

4 

4 

jj 

11 

j 

19  

b 

7-4 

6-6 

88 

4 

4 

L 

1 

20  

b 

6-2 

5r-4, 

86 

4 

3 

1, 

1 

A 

21 

b 

8-2 

6-8 

81 

4 

4 

X, 

2 

S 

22.  ... 

g 

7-5 

6-0 

81 

4 

4 

jj 

11 

g 

23  

24 

b 
g 

6U2 
6-6 

5-0 

5-4 

81 
89 

5 
g 

4 
3 

L 
L 

ft< 

P. 
j 

25... 

b 

6L11 

5-7 

84 

3 

3 

L 

1 

j 

26  

28 

b 
g 

6-10 
ft-1 

5-6 
4  10 

80 

79 

4 

4 

3 

4 

L 
L 

1 
i 

I. 

N  E 

29  
30  
31 

S 
I 

6-3 
6-1 

6-1 

4r-8 

4-8 
4-8 

74 

76 
76 

5 

5 
5 

5 
5 
5 

L 

L 

L 

1 
i 

A. 

S. 
j 

32  
S2|  
33 

b 
b 
b 

8-0 
8-6 

7  7 

6-0 

6-4 
5-4 

79 
74 
70 

3 

4 
5 

4 

4 
5 

H 
H 
•jj 

li 
li 
11 

A. 
I. 
p 

34  
35  

36 

b 
g 

6KL1 
10-0 

10r-l 

5-3 
5-1 
4-6 

76 
51 
45 

4 
5 
5 

4 
5 
g 

L 
H 
J, 

l 
si 

A. 
A. 
A 

37  

38 

b 
b 

11-0 

6-0 

6-10 
4—8 

62 
77 

3 

3 

H 
j^ 

4 

i 

A. 
A 

*  Under  "Sex"  b  means  boy,  g  means  girl.  I.  Q.  means  intelligence 
quotient.  School  work  means  the  general  average  of  school  success  as 
rated  by  the  teacher. 

,  The  teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  is  based  upon  the  child's  gen- 
eral mental  ability  as  compared  with  average  children  of  the  same  age. 
Under  Gr.  L  means  low  first  grade,  H  means  high  first.  Under  Time  in 
School  y2  means  the  first  half-year  in  school,  1  means  that  the  child  is 
now  in  the  second  half-year  in  school,  1%  means  that  he  is  now  in  the 
third  half-year  in  school,  etc.  Under  Nationality  N.  E.  means  North 
European,  A  means  American,  I  means  Italian,  S  means  Spanish,  P. 
means  Portuguese. 


The  Normal  Seminar 


Table  No.  2  —  Room  B 


Number 
of 
Child 

Sex 

Age 

Mental 
Age 

I.Q. 

School 
Work 

Teacher's 
Estimate 
of  Intel. 

Gr. 

Time 
in 
School 

Nation- 
ality 

39  
40  

41 

b 
b 
b 

6-3 
6-5 

6-2 

8-4 
6-5 
6-10 

133 
100 
110 

1 
3 
2 

1 
3 
2 

L 
H 
X, 

1 

i 

A. 
I. 
A 

42 

b 

7-5 

6-11 

93 

4 

3 

J£ 

1 

I 

43  

44 

g 

6-S 

7  2 

6-0 
(j_4 

90 
SB 

4 
g 

4 
4 

L 

J£ 

j 

I. 

g 

45 

g 

7-4 

6-4 

86 

4 

4 

x, 

| 

g 

46..     . 

g 

7-8 

6^-61 

85 

4 

4 

J£ 

2 

g 

47  
48  

b 
g 

5-7 
8-3 

4-S 
6-10 

83 

821 

4 
3 

4 

4 

L 
H 

j 

I. 

s 

49 

b 

5-11 

4-10 

82 

4 

5 

x, 

i 

I 

50  
51  
52 

g 
b 

5-8 

7-0 
7  11 

4-8 
5-9 
6-6 

82 
82' 
82 

5 
3 
3 

5 
3 

4 

L 

H 
jj 

i 

21 

s. 
I. 

g 

53 

g 

6-7 

5-4 

81 

3 

3 

L 

i 

s 

54  
55  
56  

g 
b 
g 

6-3 
8-9 
6-3 

5-0 
7-0 
4-10 

80 
80 

77 

4 
4 
3 

4 
4 
4 

L. 
H 
X, 

ll 
| 

s. 

s. 

I. 

57 

g 

6-2 

4-8 

76 

5 

5 

x, 

i 

g 

58  
59  
60  

61 

b 
g 
g 
b 

7-11 
7-9 
5-11 
6-11 

O-O 

5-8 

4-4 
6-01 

76 
75 
73 
72 

S 

4 

4 
3 

4 
4 
4 
4 

L 
L 
I, 
L 

l| 

i 

s. 
s. 
s. 

g 

62  .. 

g 

8-10 

6-4 

72 

3 

4 

H 

2J 

I 

63  
64  

b 
b 

7-11 

8-4 

5-8 
5-10 

71 
70 

4 
5 

3 
4 

H 
L 

p 

A. 
I. 

65 

b 

6-1 

4-2 

69 

5 

5 

L 

i 

g 

66  . 

g 

9-10 

6^-9 

69 

3 

4 

H 

34 

s 

67  
68  

69 

g 
g 
g 

6-10 
7-10 

6-4 

4-8 
5-4 
4-2 

68 

68 
66 

3 
4 
4 

3 

4 
4 

L 
L 
It 

1 
i 

I. 

s. 
s 

70  

b 

10-1 

6-6 

66 

3 

4 

H 

2 

s 

71  

g 

5-9 

3-8 

64 

5 

4 

L 

| 

s. 

72  

b 

5-9 

3-6 

64 

5 

4 

L 

i 

s. 

73 

b 

9-8 

5-11 

61 

5 

5 

L 

| 

s 

74  
75  

76 

g 

s~ 

6-10 
7-2 
10-5 

4-0 

4-0 

5-7 

58 
56 
54 

5 
5 
5 

5 
5 
5 

L 
L 
H 

I 
21 

I. 

s. 

s 

b 

5-10 

3-0 

51 

5 

4 

L 

1 

s 

Educational  Number,  1917 


Table  IVo.  3  —  Room  C 


Number 
of 
Child 

Sex 

Age 

Mental 
Age 

I.  Q. 

School 
Work 

Teacher's 
Estimate 
of  Intel. 

Gr. 

Time 
in 
School 

Nation- 
ality 

78  
79  
80  

b 
g 
b 

5-11 
6-0 
6-5 

7-1 
7-0 
7-0 

119 
117 
109 

2 

1 
2 

2 
2 
3 

L* 

1 

N.  E. 
A. 
p. 

81 

g 

6r-2 

6-8 

108 

3 

3 

| 

A 

82  

g 

6-11 

7-2 

103 

2 

3 

i 

p 

83  
84 

b 
b 

6-4 

6-1 

6-6 
6-10 

102 
95 

3 

4 

3 
3 

i 

A. 
A 

85    . 

b 

7-5 

7-^ 

94 

3 

3 

p 

86  

g 

7-2 

6-8 

93 

3 

3 

I 

p 

87 

g 

6-1 

5-8 

93 

3 

3 

i 

N  E 

88 

b 

8-2 

7-6 

91 

2 

3 

2 

S 

89  
90  

s 
b 

7-10 
6-6 

7-2 
5-10 

91 

90 

3 
3 

3 
3 



1 
1 

P. 
p 

91  

b 

7-4 

6-6 

89 

3 

3 

1 

s 

92 

g 

7-2 

6-4 

88 

3 

3 

1 

p 

93  
94  
95 

g 
g 
b 

8-4 
6-10 

6-3 

7-0 
5-8 
5-2 

84 
83 
83 

3 

4 
4 

3 
5 
4 



3 
1 
i 

s. 
s. 

p 

96  .. 

b 

7-3 

5-11 

81 

4 

4 

£ 

s 

97  

b 

8-5 

6-8 

79 

4 

4 

2 

I 

98 

b 

8-0 

6-4 

79 

4 

4 

2 

p 

99 

g 

7-7 

5-8 

75 

3 

4 

9 

p 

100  

b 

7-11 

5-10 

73 

4 

4 

1 

s 

101  

b 

6-7 

4-10 

73 

4 

4 

1 

p 

102 

g 

9-3 

6-8 

72 

3 

4 

2 

g 

103... 

b 

6-10 

4r-10 

71 

4 

4 

1 

p 

104  
105 

b 

g 

ft-10 

6^8 

4-6 
g^O 

66 
65 

4 
3 

4 

4 



1 

1 

s. 

p 

106  . 

b 

7-9 

4-6 

58 

5 

4 

i 

p 

107  

g 

10-6 

5-10 

56 

3 

5 

:::.,: 

1 

p. 

All  in  Table   3  are   in  Low  first. 

Table  No.  4  —  Room  D 


Number 
of 
Child 

Sex 

Age 

Mental 
Age 

I.  Q. 

School 
Work 

Teacher's 
Estimate 
of  Intel. 

Gr. 

Time 
in 
School 

Nation- 
ality 

122 

g 

7-6 

10-11 

145 

1 

1 

jj 

i 

A 

123  
124  

b 
g 

5-10 
6-5 

7-4 
8-Q 

126 
124 

2 
4 

3 

L 
L 

1 

A. 
A 

125 

g 

6-0 

7^5 

123 

1 

2 

H 

I 

A 

126.    . 

g 

6-4 

7-8 

121 

3 

3 

L 

1 

A 

127  
128  

129  . 

g 
g 
g 

6-1 
£-1 

6-4 

7-4 

7-4 
7-4 

120 
119 
116 

2 
3 
3 

2 
3 
3 

L 
L 

x, 

A. 
A. 
A 

130  

131 

g 

5-11 

6-0 

6-10 
6-10 

115 

114 

3 

4 

3 

4 

L 
L 

i 

A. 
A 

132 

b 

6-4 

7  2 

113 

2 

2 

L 

i 

133. 

b 

6-10 

7-6 

110 

3 

3 

L 

1 

A 

134  
135 

g 

6KLO 
6-7 

7-6 

7  2 

110 
109 

3 

4 

3 
4 

L 
L 

i 
i 

I. 

N  E 

136  . 

g 

6-2 

6-8 

108 

3 

3 

L 

i 

A 

137  
138  

g 
b 

6-2 
6-11 

6-8 

7-4 

107 
106 

3 

4 

3 
4 

L 
H 

if 

A. 
A. 

139  . 

g 

6-10 

7  2 

105 

3 

4 

L 

li 

p 

140  
141  

b 

g 

6-8 
6-10 

6-10 
6-11 

102 
101 

3 
3 

3 
4 

L 
L 

1 

li 

S. 
p. 

142 

g 

7-9 

7-6 

97 

3 

4 

L, 

1 

A 

143  
144  

b 
b 

6-2 
8-0 

6-0 
7-O 

96 
88 

4 
2 

3 
3 

L 
L 

i 

A. 
A. 

145  . 

b 

6-2 

5-4 

87 

5 

5 

L 

| 

A 

146  
147  

b 
b 

9-1 

6-10 

7-2 
6^4 

79 
78 

3 

4 

4 
5 

L, 
L 

21 

P. 

N.  E. 

148  . 

g 

6-7 

4-10 

73 

5 

5 

L 

\ 

A. 

149  

b 

6-0 

4-0 

67 

5 

5 

L 

P. 

10 


The  Xormal  Seminar 


Table  ZVo.  5  —  Room  E 


Number 
of 
ChUd 

Sex 

Age 

Mental 
Age 

I.Q. 

School 
Work 

Teacher's 
Estimate 
of  Intel. 

Gr. 

Time 
in 
School 

Nation- 
ality 

108  

g 

6-9 

9-6 

142 

1 

1 

H 

1 

A 

100 

cr 

7-i 

9-6 

130 

1 

9 

jj 

1 

^ 

110 

b 

6-8 

8-7 

129 

2 

1 

H 

1 

\ 

111  .     . 

b 

6-8 

8-1 

125 

1 

1 

H 

1 

P 

112  

b 

7-3 

8-5 

116 

2 

3 

H 

\ 

113 

b 

6-11 

7  3 

105 

4 

4 

jj 

\ 

114 

g 

6-0 

7-0 

117 

1 

2 

H 

\ 

115  

7-5 

8-6 

114 

1 

2 

H 

\   E 

116 

6-8 

6-8 

100 

4 

g 

jj 

p 

117 

b 

7-3 

7-4 

101 

4 

3 

H 

p 

118        

b 

6-9 

6-10 

101 

3 

3 

H 

\ 

119  

g 

7-7 

7-6 

99 

3 

3 

H 

p 

190 

g 

6-6 

6-4 

97 

2 

3 

H 

I 

4 

121... 

g 

6-11 

6-4 

92 

3 

i 

H 

1 

P. 

The  Differences  in  Different  Rooms 

A  very  brief  summary  of  the  conditions  shown  in  the  preceding 
tables  will  reveal  the  fact  that  not  only  are  the  individual  differences 
great  in  each  room,  but  the  rooms  themselves  differ  widely  in  the 
quality  of  intellect  which  each  contains. 

Room  A  has  a  rather  general  mixture  of  races  with  the  North 
European  and  American  predominating.  The  median  I.  Q.  is  87* 
and  the  median  mental  age  is  6  years  0  months.  This  means  that 
one-half  of  the  38  children  in  this  room  have  a  very  low  mental 
level,  classifying  in  the  borderzone  or  feeble  minded  groups;  and 
that  one-half  have  a  mental  age  so  low  that  they  can  not  be  ex- 
pected to  do  standard  first  grade  work  in  a  satisfactory  manner. 
(See  Chapter  III  for  discussion  of  this  point.)  Three  of  the  children 
are  feeble  minded  and  should  not  be  allowed  in  the  room. 

Room  B  represents  a  most  difficult  problem.  There  are  39 
children  in  the  room.  The  median  I.  Q.  is  76,  the  median  mental 
age  5  yr.  7  mo.  14  are  below  5  years  mental  age.  Not  more  than 
5  of  the  children  in  the  room  have  really  normal  intelligence;  13 
would  undoubtedly  classify  as  feeble  minded,  and  13  more  are  not 
far  above  the  border  line.  The  standard  course  of  study  is  not 
adapted  to  the  needs  of  these  children  and  this  teacher  should  not 
be  judged  by  the  progress  her  pupils  make  in  their  efforts  to  master 
it.  From  more  than  half  of  these  children  it  is  practically  impos- 
sible to  secure  satisfactory  first  grade  work  now. 

Room  C  is  similar  to  room  A  but  has  fewer  American  children. 
The  median  I.  Q.  is  85  and  the  median  mental  age  is  6  yr.  0  mo. 
One-half  of  these  children  have  neither  the  mental  age  nor  the  in- 
telligence level  necessary  to  master  the  first  grade  work.  17  are 
now  repeating  the  work  and  a  similar  number  will  be  required  to 

*  I.  Q.  stands  for  intelligence  quotient.  It  represents  the  relation  be- 
tween chronological  age  and  mental  age  and  is  found  by  dividing  the 
chronological  age  by  the  mental  age. 


Educational  X umber,  1917  11 

repeat  again  next  term.  Fully  half  of  these  children  should  not  be 
attempting  to  do  first  grade  work.  Almost  any  legitimate  work 
which  they  could  do  would  be  preferable. 

Room  D  has  28  pupils.  They  are  mostly  of  American  parentage. 
The  median  I.  Q.  is  108.5,  the  median  mental  age  7  yr.  and  2  mo. 
Note  the  contrast  between  this  room  and  the  three  mentioned  above. 
Nearly  half  of  these  children,  if  they  were  trained  in  a  few  essen- 
tials, could  probably  do  standard  second  grade  work.  Most  of  the 
children  here  have  a  mental  age  fully  a  year  beyond  that  which 
would  be  required  to  do  satisfactory  1st  grade  school  work.  The 
teacher  says  that  "this  is  not  a  strong  class."  Is  it  not  possible  that 
the  requirements  in  this  room  are  set  too  high  for  the  first  grade? 
That  the  pace  is  being  set  by  those  children  who  have  superior 
mental  level  and  who  have  a  high  mental  age?  Yet  there  are  4  in 
this  room  who  are  below  6  yr.  mental  age,  and  1  who  is  probably 
feeble  minded. 

Room  E  has  14  first  grade  pupils.  7  of  them  are  normal,  and 
7  are  superior  in  intelligence.  The  teacher  complained  that  "six 
of  her  pupils  were  not  doing  good  work."  She  hoped  "I  might  be 
able  to  help  find  the  cause  of  the  difficulties."  It  appears  to  me 
that  the  chief  difficulty  is  apt  to  lie  in  the  fact  that  these  six  normal 
children  are  measured  by  seven  superior  children,  without  making 
sufficient  allowance  for  the  fact  that  these  superior  children  are 
from  one  to  three  years  superior  in  mental  age  to  the  members  of 
the  normal  group.  Evidently  "poor"  in  school  work  is  a  relative 
rather  than  an  absolute  term. 

Table  No.  6  gives  a  tabular  comparison  of  the  five  rooms  on 
twenty-five  different  points.  There  are  many  points  of  interest  brot 
out  by  the  facts  presented  by  this  table.  I  shall  call  attention  to 
only  one  here.  There  is  a  natural  tendency  for  the  teacher  to 
arrange  her  pupils  according  to  a  normal  distribution  in  quality  of 
school  work  regardless  of  the  general  average  in  intelligence  or 
mental  age  found  in  her  room.  This  fact  is  strongly  evident  when 
room  C  is  compared  with  room  D.  There  is  a  normal  distribution 
of  grades  in  both  rooms.  Exactly  the  same  number  of  children  is 
marked  average  or  above  in  each  room,  notwithstanding  the  facts 
that  the  median  I.  Q.  for  room  C  is  85  and  the  median  mental  age 
is  6-0,  while  the  median  I.  Q.  for  room  D  is  108.5  and  the  median 
mental  age  7-2. 

Table  No.  7  gives  a  comparison  of  the  five  rooms  with  the  pupils 
arranged  according  to  intelligence  level.  Tables  No.  6,  7  and  8 
furnish  data  worthy  of  the  careful  study  of  school  superintendents. 


The  Normal  Seminar 


Table    No. 


Showing    Comparison    of    the    Five    Rooms    in    Which    the 

Tests   Were   Made 


Room  A 

Room  B 

Room  C 

RoomD 

Room  E 

Number  of  pupils  

38 

39 

30 

28 

14 

Age  rang©  from  

11  to  5-9 

10-5  to  5-8 

10-6  to  5-11 

9  to  5-10 

7-7  to  6-0 

M    age  range  from 

7-5  to  4-6 

8-4  to  3-0 

7-6  to  4-6 

11  to  4-0 

9-6  to  6-4 

I    Q.  range  from        

117  to  45 

133  to  51 

120  to  56 

145  to  67 

142  to  92 

Median  I.  Q  

87 

76 

85 

108  5 

110 

Median  M.  age  

6-0 

5-7 

6-0! 

7-2 

7-5 

With  I.  Q.  110  or  above  
With  I    Q.  95  to  1091  

2 

11 

2 
1 

2 
5 

13 
9 

7 
6 

With  I.  Q.  SO  to    94  

13 

14 

12 

2 

1 

With  I    Q    70  to    79 

9 

9 

3 

o 

With  I    Q   69  or  below 

3 

13 

4 

1 

o 

M    age  7  yrs    or  above 

4 

2 

g 

17 

10 

M   age  6  to  7  yrs 

19 

13 

7 

4 

M    age  below  6  yrs 

15 

24 

15 

4 

0 

M.  age  below  5  yrs.  6  mos  
M.  age  below  5  yrs  

12 
6 

18 
14 

6 
4 

4 
2 

0 

o 

No   of  repeaters 

21 

14 

17 

13 

1 

American  or  N.  E  

21 

3 

7 

21 

10 

3 

o 

14 

4 

4 

Spanish                       

3 

26 

8 

1 

o 

Italian   

0 

10 

1- 

1 

o 

No.  marked  1  in  S.  work  
No   marked  2  in  S.  work    .... 

0 
2 

1 
1 

1 
4 

2 
4 

5 

3 

No.  marked  3  in  S.  work  
No.  marked  4  in  S.  work  
No.  marked  5  in  S.  work  

17 
12 

7 

13 
13 
11 

14 
10 
5 

13 

6 
3 

3 
3 
0 

Table   No.   7  —  A   Comparison  of  the   Five   School   Rooms — the   Pupils 
Arranged  According  to  Intelligence  Quotient 


I.  Q. 

Room  A 

RoomB 

Room  C 

RoomD 

Room  E 

135       up                   

1 

1 

130         134                                

1 

1 

125  —  129 

1 

2 

120  —  124 

4 

115  —  119  

1 

2 

3 

2 

110  —  114  

1 

1 

4 

1 

105—109                 

2 

2 

-5" 

~1~ 

100  —  104                 .       .              

5 

1 

2 

2 

3 

95  —     99 

4 

1 

2 

2 

90  —     94 

3 

2 

6 

1 

85  —     89  

4  

3 

2 

2 

80  —    84                 

6 

9 

4 

75  —    79                              

G 

4 

3 

2 

70  —     74                               

3 

~jf 

4 

1 

65  —     69 

6 

2 

1 

60  —     64  

1 

3 

—     59          

2 

4 

2 

Total                        

38 

39 

30 

28 

14 

NOTE:      The   black    horizontal   line    in    each    column    represents    the 
median  I.  Q.  for  that  room: 

For  Room  A,  it  is     87 

B,  it  is     76 

C,  it  is     85 

D,  it  is  108 

E,  it  is  110 

It  is  evident  from  this  that  the  quality  of  intellect  found  in  one  room 
may  differ  greatly  from  that  found  in  another  room  of  the  same  grade. 


Educational  Number,  1917 


13 


Table    No.   8  —  A   Comparison   of   149  First   Grade   Children    Classified 
According  to  Groups  by  I.  Q.  and  by  Mental  Age 


I.  Q. 

Total 

Mental  Age 

Total 

135  —  up 

2 

1 

9-6-  up 

3 

] 

130  —  134 

2 

9-0  to  9-5 

0 

U0% 

125  —  129 

120  —  124 

3 
4 

1  17.4% 
f  Superior 

8-6  to  8-11 
8-O  to  8-5 

2 
4 

f  Superior 

115  —  119 

8 

1 

110  —  114 

7 

J 

7-0  to  7-11 

6 

1 

7-0  to  7-5 

26 

LSI.  7% 

105  —  109 

10 

1 

6-6  to  6-11 

30 

f  Average 

100  -  104 

13 

I 

6-^0  to  6-5 

21 

J 

95—99 

9 

149.9% 

90—94 

12 

f  Average 

5-6  to  5-11 

17 

1 

85—89 

11 

1 

5-0  to  5-5 

14 

138.2% 

80—84 

19 

J 

4-6  to  4-11 

-17 

FLOW 

to  4-5 

9 

J 

75  —    79 
70—    74 

15 
13 

1 

149 

65  —    69 

9 

1-32.9% 

60—64 

4 

I  Low 

—    59 

8 

J 

149 

I  have  made  the  groupings  in  these  two  classifications  purely 
by  arbitrary  divisions.  However,  I  believe  these  divisions  are  suffi- 
ciently accurate  to  make  plain  the  fact  the  first  grade  course  of  study 
is  really  adapted  to  the  needs  of  only  about  one-half  of  the  children 
found  in  the  grade,  that  approximately  one-third  of  the  children  can 
not  comprehend  the  work  given,  and  that  approximately  one-fifth 
of  the  children  do  not  have  the  type  of  work  necessary  to  make 
them  use  their  mental  abilities  to  anywhere  near  their  normal 
capacity. 

We  need  not  be  surprised  at  the  differences  shown  in  these 
tables.  I  am  confident  that  they  could  be  duplicated  in  many  school 
systems.  While  authorities  differ  on  the  point,  it  seems  to  me  that 
children  whom  we  find  in  the  first  grade  are  apt  to  show  individual 
differences  as  great  as  are  to  be  found  in  almost  any  other  grade  of 
school  work.  One  group  is  composed  of  the  left-overs  due  to  the 
failures  during  the  past  one,  two,  three,  four,  or  five  years.  Some, 
in  truth,  started  to  school  about  the  time  their  classmates  were  born. 
All  are  subject  to  a  great  variety  of  home  environment  and  the  chil- 
dren of  the  new  group  have  not.  yet  had  the  opportunity  of  mixing  in 
the  melting  pot  with  children  from  everywhere  by  which  contact  a 
certain  amount  of  amalgamation  and  lopping  off  of  individual  differ- 
ences is  bound  to  occur.  The  only  measuring  rod  that  has  been  ap- 
plied to  them  is  that  of  age.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  age  does 
not  satisfactorily  bound  individual  differences. 

It  is,  therefore,  very  important  that  the  problem  of  discovering 
what  these  differences  are  and  of  making  proper  provision  for  them 
be  attacked  as  early  as  possible  and  in  the  most  scientific  manner 
possible.  Each  child's  future  demands  it.  The  attitude  of  each 


The  Normal  Seminar 


toward  school,  toward  work,  and  toward  society  is  bound  to  be  in- 
fluenced by  whether  or  not  he  is  given  the  type  of  work  for  which 
he  is  fitted.  The  fact  that  forty  children  have  all  traveled  over  the 
roads  of  life  for  six  years  does  not  mean  that  they  are  all  fitted  for 
the  same  or  even  similar  treatment  in  the  first  grade. 


Chapter  III 
ANALYSIS  AND  STUDY  OF  THE  DIFFERENCES 

Mental  Age  and  School  Success 

One  of  the  very  significant  correlations  is  that  of  mental  age 
with  quality  of  school  work,  as  rated  by  the  teacher.  This  correla- 
tion is  high — .725,  Pearson  formula — shown  in  table  No.  9.  We 
may  infer  from  this  that  mental  age  may  be  taken  as  a  fairly  ac- 
curate index  of  what  a  child  may  be  expected  to  do  in  his  school 
work.  In  other  words,  we  might  expect,  as  a  rule,  that  the  child 
below  six  years  mental  age  in  the  first  grade  would  do  unsatisfactory 
work;  from  six  to  seven  years  mental  age,  to  do  good  work;  and 
above  7  years  mental  age,  to  do  superior  work.  It  should  be  noted, 
however,  that  some  other  factors  such  as  over-ageness,  low  mental 
level,  and  repetition  may  enter  to  complicate  matters. 

In  this  connection  let  us  notice  the  relation  between  mental  age 
and  school  work  when  there  is  a  difference  in  chronological  age. 
For  this  purpose  I  have  selected  first,  all  those  children  between  six 
and  seven  years  of  age  who  tested  at  "normal"  (I.  Q.  from  95  to 
105).  These  are  shown  in  table  No.  10. 

For  the  second  group  I  selected  all  those  who  were  between 
eight  and  nine  years  of  age  and  who  tested  "dull"  (I.  Q.  75  to  85). 
These  are  shown  in  table  No.  11. 

There  are  sixteen  children  in  the  normal  group  and  ten  in  the 
dull  group.  The  average  mental  age  for  the  normal  group  is  6  yr. 
6  mo.,  of  the  dull  group,  6  yr.  6  mo.  The  average  I.  Q.  of  the  normal 
group  is  100.7,  of  the  dull  group  77.8.  The  average  chronological 
age  of  the  normal  group  is  6  yr.  6  mo.,  of  the  dull  group  8  yr.  4  mo. 
The  average  difference  in  chronological  age  is  almost  2  years.  The 
average  mark  for  school  work  for  the  mental  group  is  3.12,  for  the 
dull  group  is  3.70.  This  is  an  advantage  of  .58  in  favor  of  the 
normal  group.  It  is  very  indefinite  just  what  this  advantage  is.  It 
does  not  matter.  The  evidence  merely  shows  that  the  members  of 
the  normal  group  appear  to  do  better  school  work  than  the  members 
of  the  dull  group  (altho  the  difference  is  not  great),  notwithstanding 
the  facts  that  the  dull  children  are  all  repeaters,  some  of  them  for 
the  third  time,  and  they  average  two  years  older  in  chronological 
age  than  the  normal  children. 


Educational  Number,  1917 


15 


Table   No.  9  —  Showing   Correlation   of   Mental   Age  With   Quality   of 

School   Work 


QUALITY  OF  SCHOOL  WORK 


5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Total 

9-6  —  up  

3 

3 

9-0  to  9-5  

8-6  to  8-11 

1 

1 

9 

8-0  to   8-5 

1 

1 

2 

4 

7-6  to  7-11  

5 

1 

6 

7-0  to  7  5 

6 

10 

7 

3 

96 

6-6  to  6-11 

9 

18 

3 

30 

6-0  to  6-5 

6 

14 

1 

21 

5-6  to   5-11  

3 

7 

7 

17 

5-0  to  5-5  

4 

6 

4 

14 

4-6  to  4-11 

8 

7 

2 

17 

to   4-5     . 

7 

2 

9 

Total... 

22 

44 

60 

14 

9 

149 

Correlation   .725   (Pearson) 

What  relation  is  there  between  the  quality  of  school  work  of 
the  normal  6-year-old  child  and  the  dull  or  borderzone  8-year-old 
child? 


Table   No.  10  —  Normal   6-Year-Old   Children 


NUMBER  OF    CHILD 

Age 

M. 

Age 

I.-Q. 

School 
Work 

Gr. 

Time  in 
School 

Nation- 
ality 

83  

6-4 
6-1 
6-5 
6-O 
6-2 

6-S 
6-8 
6-7 
6-8 
6-11 

6-11 
6-8 
6-9 
6-6 
6-8 
6-10 

6-6 
5-10 
6-5 
6-2 

6-0 

7-0 
6-10 
6-6 
6-6 
7  2 

102 
95 
100 
105 

96 

105 
102 
96 
100 
108 

105 
100 
101 
97 
102 
98 

3 
4 
3 
3 

4 

3 

3 
3 
3 

2 

4 
4 
3 
2 
3 
3 

L 
L 
H 
L 
L 

H 
L 
L 
L 
L 

H 
H 
H 
H 
L 
L, 

| 
\ 

ii 

i 
i 
i 
\ 

i 

2 
1 
1 
1 

H 

A. 
A. 
I. 

N.  E. 
A. 

N.  E. 
N.  E. 
I. 
I. 
P. 

A. 
P. 
A. 
A. 

S. 
P. 

84  

40 

7 

143  

4 

8  

10  

12 

82  ... 

113 

7-3 
6-8 
6-10 
6-4 
6-10 
6-9 

116  

118  

120  

140     . 

141... 

16 


The  Normal  Seminar 


Table  No.  11  —  Dull  8- Year-Old  Children 


NUMBER  OF   CHILD 

Age 

M. 

Age 

I.  Q. 

School 
Work 

Gr.      Time  in 
School 

Nation- 
ality 

21   

8-2 
8-0 
8-6 
8-3 
8-9 

8-10 
8-4 
8-4 
8-9 
8-0 

6-10 
6-0 

6-4 
6-10 
7-0 

6-4 
5-10 
7-0 
6-8 

6-4 

81 
75 
74 
82 
80 

72: 
70 
84 
79 
79 

4 
3 
4 
3 
4 

3 
5 
3 

4 
4 

L 
H 
H 
H 
H 

H 
L 
L 
L 
L 

2 
IJ 

1 

IJ 
21 

3 

2 
2 

S. 
A. 
I. 

S. 
S. 

I. 
I. 

S. 

I. 
p. 

32 

32J 

48                                

55  

62              

64  

93 

97              

98 

It  may  be  that  the  alertness  of  the  normal  mind  more  than 
balances  the  two  years  of  additional  experience  of  the  duller  child 
at  this  age.  All  those  in  the  dull  group  are  rated  by  the  teachers 
"4"  in  intelligence.  Only  two  of  those  in  the  normal  group  are  so 
rated  (they  are  both  repeaters).  The  rest  are  rated  "3." 

Prom  this  analysis  we  would  conclude  that,  while  mental  age 
does  indicate  similar  possibilities  of  accomplishment,  yet  the  child  in 
the  first  grade  with  a  normal  I.  Q.  is  apt  to  have  some  advantage 
over  the  child  of  the  same  mental  age  but  with  a  %  I.  Q.  (75).  It 
would  be  natural  to  expect  differences  of  greater  or  less  degree  to 
vary  in  proportion. 

What  Mental  Age  Is  Necessary  to  do  Satisfactory  First  Grade  Work? 

Earlier  in  the  discussion  we  stated  that  we  would  expect  the 
child  below  6  years  in  mental  age,  as  a  rule,  to  do  inferior  first  grade 
work.  Of  the  150  pupils  included  in  this  study  57  are  under  six 
years  mental  age;  22  of  these  are  rated  by  the  teacher  "5"  (very 
inferior);  22  are  rated  "4"  (inferior);  and  13  are  rated  "3"  (aver- 
age). Table  No.  12  shows  data  concerning  these  13  rated  "3." 

Eight  children,  Nos.  15,  24,  25,  90,  99,  105,  107,  and  51,  are 
repeating  their  work.  Since  the  majority  of  these  are  not  much 
over-age  we  might  expect  them,  as  repeaters,  to  do  "average"  work. 
Of  the  remaining  five  cases,  one  has  an  I.  Q.  of  93  and  a  mental  age 
of  5-8  hence  is  practically  normal,  while  four  are  associated  in 
classwork  with  26  other  children,  13  of  whom  are  either  borderzone 
or  feeble  mentally.  (Room  B,  table  2.)  The  I.  Q.'s  of  these  four  stand 
in  the  central  portion  of  the  group  of  26.  Hence  it  would  be  rather 
natural  for  any  teacher  in  such  a  situation  to  rate  such  children 
"average."  She  would  likely  rate  them  differently  if  she  had  them 
associated  with  a  stronger  group.  Therefore,  it  is  entirely  probable 
that  these  children  are  not  doing  "average"  first  grade  work. 

It  appears  from  this  analysis  that  we  cannot  expect  a  child 
whose  mental  age  is  below  six  years  to  do  satisfactorily  the  standard 
first  grade  work  unless  he  is  a  repeater  or  is  over-age.  The  latter 


Educational  Number,  1917 


17 


class  may  do  satisfactory  work  but  is  more  apt  to  be  found  in  the 
inferior  column. 

What   mental  age   is   necessary  to   do   satisfactory   first   grade 
work? 

Table  No.  12  —  This  Table  Shows  Data  Concerning:  the  13  Children  Who 
Are  Below  6  Years  in  Mental  Agre  "Who  Are  Marked  3  or  Average 
in  Quality  of  School  Work 


NUMBER   OF    CHILD 

Age 

M. 

Age 

I.Q. 

School 
Work 

Gr. 

Time  in 
School 

Nation- 
ality 

15  

6-4 

5-9 

88 

3 

L 

1 

I 

24  
25 

6-6 
6-11 

5-4 
5-7 

82 
84 

3 
3 

L 
L 

1 
1 

I. 
I 

87 

6-1 

5-8 

93 

3 

L 

I 

N  E 

90  

6-6 

5-10 

90 

3 

L 

1 

p 

99  

7-7 

5-8 

75 

3 

L 

2 

p 

105 

7-8 

5-0 

65 

3 

L 

1 

p 

107  

10-6 

'5-10 

56 

3 

L 

2—1— 

p 

51  

7-0 

5-9 

82 

3 

H 

1 

I 

53 

6-7 

5-4 

81 

3 

L 

i 

g 

56                         

G-3 

4-10 

77 

3 

L 

I 

61  

6-11 

5-0 

72 

3 

L 

I 

S 

67  

6-10 

4-8 

68 

3 

L 

i 

I. 

Why  are  children  of  6  year  mental  age  sometimes  marked  un- 
satisfactory or  inferior  in  school  work? 

Table  14  is  arranged  to  show  data  concerning  all  the  children 
found  (22)  whose  mental  age  was  6  years  or  over  and  whose  school 
work  was  rated  "4"  or  inferior.  13  are  below  95  in  I.  Q.,  hence, 
should  be  rated  dull-normal  or  below  average  in  ability.  In  a  nor- 
mal distribution  we  would  expect  some  if  not  all  of  these  to  be  rated 
below  average.  It  may  be  that  these  children  have  the  actual  ca- 
pacity to  understand  their  work  and  do  it  in  average  fashion  but 
that  they,  being  dull,  suffer  by  way  of  comparison  with  brighter 
intellects.  Nos.  116,  117,  and  113  have  I.  Q.'s  of  100,  101,  and  105, 
respectively.  They  should  be,  and  probably  are  doing  satisfactory 
work  of  first  grade  standard,  but  they  are  associated  in  class  work 
with  other  children  of  one  or  two  years  higher  mental  age.  (See 
room  E.)  These  children  probably  suffer  by  comparison. 

There  are  six  children  in  whom  the  mental  tests  appear  to 
show  no  cause  for  inferior  work.  These  are  Nos.  143,  131,  138,  135, 
124,  and  13.  No.  13  is  reported  by  the  teacher  as  a  dreamy,  un- 
interested boy.  It  is  likely  that  the  school  work  has  not  struck  any 
chord  of  interest  in  this  boy's  life.  He  may  wake  up  some  day  to  do 
satisfactory  work.  His  problem  should  be  studied.  The  other  five 
children  are  in  room  D.  The  I.  Q.'s  average  high.  There  are  several 
causes  that  might  enter  to  produce  their  inferior  school  marks,  such 
as  absence,  ill  health,  spoiled  nature,  poor  attention  to  work,  lack 
of  harmony  of  feeling,  etc.  However,  it  may  be  that  these  pupils 
again  suffer  by  comparison  with  an  older  mental-age  group.  The 


18 


The  Normal  Seminar 


average  mental  age  for  this  group  is  6  years  5  months  while  for  the 
class  as  a  whole  it  is  7  years  and  2  months.  It  is  also  evident  from 
the  study  that  the  teacher  of  room  D  rates  lower  in  quality  of  school 
work  for  the  same  mental  ability  than  do  the  teachers  of  the  five 
rooms  as  a  whole.  The  median  I.  Q.  of  all  the  children  rated  4  by 
all  the  teachers  is  82;  the  median  I.  Q.  of  all  the  children  rated  4 
by  this  teacher  is  107. 

Therefore,  it  appears  that  if  proper  allowance  were  made  for 
standards  of  grading,  very  few  of  the  children  who  are  six  years  or 
over  mental  age  would  be  marked  inferior. 

Taking  the  150  children  as  a  whole,  both  the  quality  of  school 
work  and  the  I.  Q.  are  low  for  the  children  of  low  mental  age.  40 
pupils  are  below  5y2  years  mental  age.  Very  few,  if  any,  of  these 
can  do  standard  first  grade  work. 

On  the  other  hand,  26  pupils  are  between  7  and  8  years,  and  10 
pupils  above  8  years  mental  age.  Many  of  the  26  and  all  of  the  10 
could  probably  do  satisfactory  second  or  third  grade  work  after  a 
very  little  coaching.  It  is  significant  that  no  child  above  6  mental 
age  is  marked  by  the  teacher  "inferior"  in  school  work. 


Table  No.  14  —  To  Show  Why  Unsatisfactory  Work,  Marked  4  by  the 
Teacher,  Is  Recorded  Against  22  Children  Whose  Mental  Age  is 
Six  or  Above 


NUMBER  OF  CHILD 

I.  Q. 

Age 

Mental 
Age 

Grade 

Time  in 
School 

Teacher's 
Estimate 
of  Intel. 

Nation- 
ality 

194 

124 
109 
106 
105 

101 
96 
80 
114 

100 
98 
89 

82 

80 
96 
93 
90 

89 
86 
85 
81 

79 
75 

6-5 
6-7 
6-11 
6-11 

7-3 
7-4 
8-9 
6-0 

6-8 
7-0 
7-8 
8-2 

8-5 

6-2 
7-5 
6-8 

7-4 

7-4 
7-8 
7-5 

8-0 
8-6 

8-0 
7-2 
7-4 
7-3 

7-4 
7-0 
7-0 
6-10 

6-8 
6-6 
6-10 
&-8 

6-8 
6-0 
6-11 
6-0 

6-6 
6-4 
6-6 
6-X) 

6-0 
6-4 

L 
L 
H 
H 

H 
H 
H 
L 

H 
H 
H 
L 

L 
L 
H 
L 

L 
L 
H 
H 

L 
H 

1 

1 

ii 
i 

i 
n 
11 

2 
H 
li 
2 

2 
I 

I 
1 

»' 

11 
2 
11 

3 

4 
4 
4 

3 

4 
4 
4 

3 
4 
4 
4 

4 

A. 

N.  E. 
A. 
A. 

P. 

N.  E. 
S. 
A. 

P. 
A. 
I. 

S. 

I. 
A. 
I. 
I. 

'&'" 

S. 
S. 

p. 

I. 

135 

138  

113  

117  .       .                  

13  

55 

131 

116 

14                                               ... 

18  ..         .                      

21 

97                                

143  

3— 

3 
4 

4 
4 
4 
4 

4— 
4 

42 

43                                                    .    . 

19 

45 

46  

22 

98  

32J... 

Educational  Number,  1917 


19 


Table   No.   16  —  Correlation   Between    Chronological   Age   and    Quality   of 

School   Work 


SCHOOL  WORK 


5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Total 

10-6  to  10-11  

1 

2 

3 

10-0  to  10-5  

1 

1 

1 

3 

9-6  to     {Ml 

1 

1 

9-0  to     9-5 

2 

2 

8-6  to     8-11  

2 

1 

3 

8-0  to     8-5  

1 

3 

3 

2 

g 

7-6  to    7-11 

2 

6 

g 

^ 

7_0  to     7-5  

1 

g 

7 

j 

2 

19 

6-6  to    6-11  

2 

12 

19 

3 

2 

38 

6-0  to     6-5 

g 

10 

13 

4 

5-6  to     5-11  . 

4 

3 

3 

4 

Total  

21 

45    , 

60 

14 

9 

149 

Correlation    .037 

This  is  a  negative  correlation  which  means  that  the  older  chil- 
dren do  a  poorer  quality  of  school  work.  We  would  very  naturally 
infer  from  this  that  the  older  children  who  represent  the  retarded 
group,  by  age  standards,  must  on  the  average  be  duller  than  those 
who  are  at  age  for  the  grade.  There  appears  to  be  a  close  associa- 
tion between  retardation  and  dullness  or  quality  of  school  work. 
This  question  is  discussed  more  fully  under  the  topic  "What  is  the 
principal  cause  of  retardation?" 

As  a  rule,  the  younger  children  in  the  first  grade  have  the 
higher  marks  in  school  work  and  also  the  higher  I.  Q.'s.  Very  few 
of  those  who  are  above  7  years,  and  none  of  those  above  8  years  of 
age,  have  a  normal  mental  level.  It  is  rather  remarkable  that,  out 
of  56  children  above  7  years  of  age,  only  5  are  doing  better  than 
average  (3)  work.  The  older  children  are  doing  poor  work,  as  a 
rule,  altho  most  of  them  are  repeaters. 

Table    No.    17  —  Correlation    Between    Intelligence    Quotient    and    Quality 

of   School    Work 


SCHOOL  WORK 


i.      Vtf. 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

130  —  up.... 

3 

125  —  129...     . 

2 

1 

120  —  124  

1 

1 

1 

2 

115  —  119  

3 

3 

2 

110  —  114  

1 

2 

3 

1 

105  —  109  

3 

6 

1 

100  —  104  

2 

10 

1 

95  _     99  

3 

g 

1 

90  —     94  

3 

g 

1 

85—89 

1 

5 

4 

j 

80  —     84  

2 

10 

7 

75  —    79  

3 

7 

5 

70  —    74  . 

4, 

5 

3 

05  —     69  

2 

4 

4 

60  —     64  

3 

1 

—     59 

7 

1 

Total  

22 

44 

60 

14 

9 

Correlation   .710 


20  The  Normal  Seminar 

The  correlation  between  intelligence  quotient  and  quality  of 
school  work  is  lower  than  that  between  mental  age  and  school  work. 
This  is  what  we  might  expect,  for  a  few  children  whose  I.  Q.'s  are 
high  are  very  young  and  have  a  mental  age  barely  equal  to  master- 
ing average  first  grade  work.  Several  whose  I.  Q.'s  are  very  low  are 
repeaters  in  the  grade,  hence  may  be  able  to  do  average  class  room 
work.  These  conditions  would  tend  to  lower  the  correlation. 

The  median  I.  Q.  for  all  children  marked  1  is  125;  marked  2  is 
113;  marked  3  is  92;  marked  4  is  82;  marked  5  is  69. 

Sixty  pupils  are  marked  3  in  school  work  as  follows: 

4  pupils  between  5y2  and  6       years  of  age — Median  I.  Q.  103 

13  pupils  between  6       and  6^  years  of  age — Median  I.  Q.  105 

18  pupils  between  6^  and  7       years  of  age — Median  I.  Q.  94 

7  pupils  between  7       and  7%  years  of  age — Median  I.  Q.  91 

8  pupils  between  7%  and  8       years  of  age — Median  I.  Q.  86 
10  pupils  between  8       and  above     -                    Median  I.  Q.  72 

The  older  pupils  may  be  rated  the  same  in  school  work  but  the 
I.  Q.  is  lower  as  the  age  increases. 

Table  No.  18  is  arranged  for  the  study  of  certain  sex  differences. 

There  are  seventy-nine  boys  and  seventy-one  girls,  making  the 
groups  closely  comparable.  The  median  I.  Q.  of  the  boys  is  86;  for 
the  girls  91. 

44  of  the  boys  or  57%  of  the  total  are  below  average  in 

school  work. 
23  of  the  girls  or  32%  of  the  total  are  below  average  in 

school  work. 
28%  of  the  boys  and  53%  of  the  girls  are  average  in 

school  work. 
16%  of  the  boys  and  14%  of  the  girls  are  above  average 

in  school  work. 

The  girls  predominate  in  the  average  group  while  the  boys  pre- 
dominate in  both  the  "below  average  group"  and  the  "above  average 
group."  However,  more  girls  are  found  in  the  highest  group. 

Of  the  33  cases  of  retardation  by  age,  mentioned  elsewhere  in 
the  study,  19  are  boys  and  14  are  girls — 24.0%  and  19.7%,  respec- 
tively— which  is  a  difference  of  4.3%  in  favor  of  the  girls.  This  is 
exactly  the  same  as  the  average  difference  in  percentage  found  by 
Ayers  in  a  study  of  retardation  in  the  Elementary  Grades  of  15 
American  cities. 

In  order  to  make  some  comparisons  with  the  two  groups  unde*r 
as  nearly  the  same  conditions  as  possible,  I  have  selected  for  one 
group  all  the  boys  who  tested  normal  in  I.  Q.  and  for  another  group, 
all  the  girls  who  tested  normal  (95  to  105  I.  Q.).  Table  No.  19 
shows  data  concerning  the  boys,  and  table  No.  20  concerning  the 
girls.  There  are  15  boys  and  11  girls. 


For  Boys 

For  Girls 

The  average  I  Q  is  

100.5 

100.8 

The  average  chronological  age  is.. 
The  average  mental  age  is  
The  average  rating  in  work  

6  yr.  8   mo. 
6  yr.  8|  mo. 
3.40 

6  yr.  9   mo. 
6  yr.  10  mo. 

2.81 

Educational  Number,  1917 


It  is  evident  that,  when  the  mental  level,  chronological  age, 
and  mental  age  are  almost  identical,  the  girls  still  have  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  boys  in  ability  to  get  good  school  marks.  The  differ- 
ence in  favor  of  the  girls  in  this  case  being  .60  which  is  a  little 
more  than  one-half  of  one  step  in  the  five-point  scale  of  grading.  It 
will  also  be  noted  that  the  girls  of  normal  ability  average  above 
average  in  school  marks  (2.81  vs.  3),  while  the  boys  of  normal 
ability  average  below  average  in  school  marks  (3.40  vs.  3). 

Table  No.  18  —  Showing-  a  Comparison  of  Boys  and  Girls  With  Reference 
to  I.  Q.  (on  the  perpendicular  scale)  and  Quality  of  School  Work 
(horizontal  scale)  As  Rated  by  the  Teacher 


BOYS 


I.  Q. 

SCHOOL  WORK 

SCHOOL  WORK 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Total 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Total 

140  

2 
1 
1 
3 

2 
1 
4 
7 
10 
13 
13 
11 
6 
3 
1 

130 

• 

1 
1 

1 
3 
8 

120 

2 
6 
1 
1 

1 

1 

1 
4 

1 

110 

1 

4 
4 
11 
10 
1 

1 
7 
4 
4 
4 
2 

100 

12 
9 



1 
2 
5 
3 

2 

8 
10 
7 
4 
3 
1 

1 
1 

90  
80  

"*£*' 

3 

4 
3 

18 
17 
7 
3 
1 

1 
4 
1 
2 
1 

70 

60    .... 

50  

40 

1 

Total..,.. 

12 

32 

22 

11 

2 

79 

9 

14 

38 

3 

.    7 

71 

GIRLS 


Table   No.  19  —  This   Table   Shows   Data   Concerning  All   of  the  Boys 
Whose  Intelligence  Quotients  Were  Between  95  and   105 


NUMBER  OF  CHILD 

Age 

Mental 
Age 

LQ. 

School 
Work 

Teacher's 
Estimate 
of  Intel. 

Gr. 

Time  in 
School 

Nation- 
ality 

3  

5-10 

6-0 

103 

3 

3— 

I/ 

| 

A. 

5 

5-11 

6^-2 

104 

3 

3-1- 

L 

a 

I. 

6-0 

6-4 

105 

3 

3 

L 

I 

N.  E. 

11 

7-7 

7-5 

98 

3 

3 

H 

11 

A. 

12  

6-8 

6-8 

100 

3 

s 

L 

1 

I. 

13  

7-4 

7-0 

95.6 

4 

4 

H 

li 

A. 

83  

6-4 

6-4 

102.5 

3 

3 

L 

1 

A. 

84  

6-1 

5-10 

95.8 

4 

3 

L 

\ 

A. 

113 

6-11 

7-3 

105 

4 

4 

H 

i 

A. 

116 

6-8 

6-8 

100 

4 

3 

H 

2 

P. 

117  .                 .           

7-3 

7-4 

101 

4 

3 

H 

1 

P. 

118  

6-9 

6-10 

101 

3 

3 

H 

1 

A. 

119    

7-7 

7-fl 

99 

3 

3 

H 

1 

P. 

140 

6-8 

£-10 

102  5 

3 

3 

L 

1 

S. 

143..., 

6-2 

6-0 

96 

4 

3— 

L 

1 

A. 

The  Normal  Seminar 


Table    No.   20  —  Showing  Data   Concerning   All   of  the   Girls    Whose 
Intelligence  Quotients  \Vere  Between  95  and  105 


NUMBER  OF  CHILD 

Age 

Mental 
Age 

I.Q. 

School 
Work 

Teacher's 
Estimate 
ol  Intel. 

Gr. 

Time  in 
School 

Nation- 
ality 

4  

6-8 

7-0 

105 

3 

3-|- 

H 

1| 

N.  E 

Q 

5-10 

6-0 

103 

3 

3 

L 

i 

I 

8  

6-S 

6-10 

102.5 

3 

3— 

L, 

1 

N  E 

9 

7-3 

7-2 

99 

3 

3 

H 

li 

A 

10 

6-7 

6-4 

96 

3 

3 

L 

1 

I 

40  

6-5 

6-5 

100 

3 

3 

H 

1 

I 

82 

6-11 

7-2 

103  5 

2 

3-1- 

L 

i 

P 

120  

6-6 

6-4 

97  5 

2 

3 

H 

1 

A 

139 

6-10 

7-2 

105 

3 

4 

L 

li 

p 

141  

6-10 

6-11 

101 

s 

4 

£, 

li 

p 

142..., 

7-9 

7-6 

97 

3 

4 

L 

1 

A. 

All  the  evidence  seems  to  point  to  the  same  fact:  that  boys  do 
not  succeed  as  well  in  school  work  as  girls  do.  What  is  the  reason? 
It  may  be  that  the  school  curriculum  is  better  adapted  to  the  needs 
and  interests  of  girls;  that  girls  have  more  industry  and  better  ap- 
plication; that  girls  more  willingly  submit  to  direction  in  a  "task," 
that  is,  have  less  rebellious  minds  with  reference  to  school  work; 
that  girls  are  better  behaved  than  boys  and  that  school  marks  reflect 
some  influence  of  behavior;  that  teachers  (all  women)  are  better 
suited  to  teaching  girls  than  boys;  or  it  may  be  any  one  or  a  com- 
bination of  many  of  the  causes  that  might  be  mentioned.  At  any 
rate,  the  differences  due  to  sex  are  worthy  of  careful  study  and  ex- 
perimentation. 

The  Correlation  Between  Intelligence  Quotient  and  Social  Status. 

The  children  were  classified  as  to  social  status  by  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  father  (Taussig's  classification). 

The  correlation  between  I.  Q.  and  social  status  is  .48  (Pearson). 
This  means  that  the  lower  intelligence  quotient  is  more  apt  to  come 
from  the  lower  social  classes  than  from  the  upper,  or  stated  in  an- 
other way,  low  grade  intelligence  does  not  come  so  frequently  from 
the  upper  social  classes.  The  median  I.  Q.  for  the  lowest  two  classes 
(4  and  5)  falls  in  the  group  80  to  84;  for  classes  2  and  3,  in  group 
105  to  109;  for  the  highest  class  (1),  in  group  115  to  119.  It 
should  be  noted,  however,  that  some  very  bright  children  are  found 
in  the  lower  social  classes,  and  a  few  low  cases  are  found  in  the 
upper  social  groups.  The  genius  who  comes  from  the  lower  group 
is  apt  to  be  conspicuous. 


Educational  Number,  1917 


Table  No.  22  —  A   Comparison  of  the  Intelligence  Quotients   of  Pupils  of 
Different  Nationalities 


Spanish 

Portu- 
guese 

Italian 

N.  Euro- 
pean 

.American 

130         up 

5 

125  —  129 

2 

1 

120         124              .           

4 

115         119 

1 

7 

110  —  114 

1 

2 

3 

1Q5    109 

2 

—3 

100  —  104                  

1 

2 

5 

1 

3 

95           99 

1 

1 

1 

7 

90  —     94 

1 

6 

2 

1 

2 

85  —     gg                                       

4 

2 

4 

80          84 

11 

2 

•  •  6 

75  _     79  

—  4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

70  —     74 

4 

3 

3 

2 

65  —     69  .                      

6 

2 

1 

60  —     64  

3 

1 

59 

3 

2 

1 

2 

Totals... 

37 

23 

25 

14 

49 

The  median  I.  Q.  for  the  Spanish  children  lies  in  group  75  to  80. 
The  median  I.  Q.  for  the  Portuguese  children  lies  in  group  80  to  85. 
The  median  I.  Q.  for  the  Italian  children  lies  in  group  80  to  85. 
The  median  I.  Q.  for  the  N.  European  children  lies  in  group  105  to  110. 
The  median  I.  Q.  for  the  American  children  lies  in  group  105  to  110. 
The  median  I.  Q.  for  the  entire  group  is  89. 


Table  No.  23  —  To  Show  Retardation  by  Age 


Low 

High 

5-6  to    5-11 

15 

3 

6-0  to     6-5               .                      

35 

6-6i  to    6-11            

27 

11 

7-0  to    75 

8 

11 

7-6  to    7  11                         

11 

7 

8-0  to    8-5 

7 

2 

8-6  to    8-11                                              •  •   . 

3 

9-0  to    9-5              

2 

9-6  to    9-11 

1 

1 

10-0  to  10-5 

1 

2 

10-6  to  up                                 

2 

1 

Total 

109 

41 

GRADE  ONE 


Those  who  have  reached  the  age  of  7  yr.  6  mo.  and  are  still  in 
the  low  1st,  and  those  who  have  reached  the  age  of  8  yr.  and  are 
still  in  the  high  1st  grade  are  considered  retarded. 

The  33  cases  below  the  zigzag  line  are  retarded  according  to 
age-grade  distribution. 


The  Normal  Seminar 


Retardation  by  Age 

Table  No.  23  shows  the  age-grade  distribution  of  the  150 
children  tested. 

All  the  figures  below  the  zig-zag  line  represent  retarded  children 
—  in  number,  33  which  is  22%  of  the  total  enrollment.  In  the  low 
first  grade  22%  of  the  children  are  retarded.  In  the  high  first  grade 
21.9%  of  the  children  are  retarded. 

These  percentages  are  slightly  lower  than  those  found  in  the 
Salt  Lake  City  survey  which  are  as  follows: 

Retarded  in  high  1st     20.7% 

Retarded  in  low  1st     38.3% 

Average     29.5% 

What  Causes  Retardation? 

While  it  is  important  that  we  know  the  amount  of  retardation, 
it  is  doubtless  of  much  greater  importance  that  we  find  the  causes 
of  retardation.  Leonard  P.  Ayers,  in  "Laggards  in  Our  Schools" 
speaks  as  follows:  "Since  retardation  is  ascribable  to  only  two  con- 
ditions, late  entrance  and  slow  progress,  and  since  late  entrance  is 
found  to  be  only  a  small  factor  (affecting  less  than  one-third)  *  *  * 
slow  progress,  however  caused,  is  proved  to  be  the  great  factor  in 
bringing  about  the  existing  condition.  *  *  *  There  is  no  one 
cause  for  retardation,  nor  can  we  say  that  any  one  cause  is  pre- 
ponderant (the  bold  face  type  is  my  own).  Late  entrance  is  a  po- 
tent factor,  irregular  attendance  is  another.  *  *  *  Certain  physical 
defects  are  responsible  for  a  part  of  the  backwardness."  Under  the 
heading  "Remedies"  he  suggests  two  phases,  legislative  and  execu- 
tive. Under  legislative  he  includes:  better  compulsory  attendance 
laws,  better  enforcement  of  the  same,  better  laws  for  the  taking  of 
the  school  census,  better  agreement  between  the  length  of  the  school 
course  and  the  length  of  the  compulsory  attendance  period.  Under 
administrative  reforms,  he  includes:  better  medical  inspection, 
courses  of  study  which  more  nearly  fit  the  abilities  of  the  average 
pupil,  more  flexible  grading,  and  a  better  knowledge  of  the  facts. 

In  the  introduction  to  the  book,  "Laggards  *  *  *,"  Dr.  Gulick 
says,  "The  most  significant  of  the  findings  are:  (1)  That  the  most 
important  causes  of  retardation  of  school  children  can  be  re- 
moved." *  *  * 

This  point  of  view  seems  to  be  rather  generally  accepted  among 
educators:  viz.,  that  the  causes  of  retardation  can  be  removed.  We 
wish  to  take  issue  with  this  point  of  view.  Let  us  examine  the  data 
concerning  the  33  cases  of  retardation  found  in  this  study.  See 
Table  No.  24  —  "To  show  causes  of  retardation." 

For  purposes  of  classification  the  children  are  divided  into 
three  groups:  (1)  Those  who  entered  late,  (2)  those  who  entered 
at  normal  age  but  show  slow  progress,  (3)  those  who  show  both 
late  entrance  and  slow  progress.  At  normal  age  means  within  six 
months  of  the  time  when  the  child  is  six  years  old. 


Educational  Number,  1917  25 

Five  of  these  retarded  children  show  late  entrance,  eighteen 
entered  at  normal  age  but  progressed  slowly,  ten  show  both  late 
entrance  and  slow  progress. 

Of  the  five  children  who  show  late  entrance,  only  one,  No.  119, 
has  normal  mental  ability  (I.  Q.  99).  She  has  made  regular  progress 
since  entering  school  and  is  now  doing  work  of  average  quality.  The 
remaining  four  are  sub-normal  children  mentally,  belonging  either 
in  the  feeble-minded  or  in  the  borderzone  group.  The  very  fact 
that  these  four  children  have  a  low  mental  level  is  the  most  probable 
cause  of  their  late  entrance  into  school,  hence  the  most  probable 
cause  of  their  retardation.  They  are  all  failing  in  their  work  at 
present  and  will  be  repeaters  next  term — still  further  retarded. 

Eighteen  children  show  entrance  at  normal  age,  but  slow  prog- 
ress. All  of  these  are  repeaters,  several  for  the  third  or  fourth  time. 
The  mental  level  of  each  one  is  low.  Four  are  probably  feeble- 
minded, the  rest  would  classify  in  the  borderzone  or  in  the  dull 
mental  groups.  Only  one  (I.  Q.  91.7)  even  approaches  the  normal 
mental  level.  This  one  as  rated  by  the  teacher  is  the  best  one  of 
the  eighteen  in  ability  to  accomplish  school  work. 

Ten  children  show  both  late  entrance  and  slow  progress.  Eight 
of  these  have  low  mentality;  one  has  a  mental  level  approaching  the 
normal  (91.4  I.  Q.)  and  is  now  doing  average  work;  one  has  a  nor- 
mal mental  level  (97  I.  Q.)  and  the  data  at  hand  does  not  suggest 
any  cause  of  retardation. 

Of  the  total  number  (33)  of  retarded  children,  only  two  have 
normal  mental  ability  as  shown  by  the  psychological  tests.  Stated 
in  another  way,  93.9%  of  all  the  retardation  shown  by  the  age-grade 
chart  of  these  five  rooms,  is  found  in  children  of  low  mental  level. 
It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  a  very  significant  fact,  and  one  that  has 
not  been  established  by  any  former  study.  While  there  may  be 
contributory  causes  low  mentality  is  undoubtedly  the  chief  cause  of 
retardation  in  these  five  rooms  of  first  grade  children. 

I  predict  that  we  shall  soon  discover  that  there  is  "one  cause 
of  retardation  that  is  preponderant,"  and  that  that  cause  is  low 
mental  level.  If  this  be  true,  can  "the  most  important  causes  of 
retardation  of  school  children  be  removed?"  This  can  happen  only 
if  we  can  change  a  low  mental  level  to  a  much  higher  mental  level 
in  the  same  individual.  Very  few,  if  any,  educators  would  argue 
that  this  can  be  done. 

While,  as  a  rule,  we  can  not  remove  the  cause  of  retardation, 
we  can,  and  probably  should,  remove  the  retardation  itself.  These 
retarded  pupils  should  be  moved  on  in  some  form  of  work  which  will 
best  fit  their  needs.  They  should  not  be  made  to  mark  time  on 
work  which  they  can  not  master,  or  which,  if  finally  mastered,  will 
be  of  little  practical  use  to  them.  Under  the  present  organization  of 
school  systems  in  general,  nearly  all  of  these  pupils  (22%*  of  the 

*  Ayers  found  that  22%  of  the  children  enrolled  in  the  city  schools 
of  Cleveland  in  1915  were  in  this  "over  age,  slow  group."  "Child  Ac- 
counting in  the  Public  Schools,"  Ayers. 


The  Normal  Seminar 


total  enrollment)  will  continue  in  school,  during  the  compulsory 
period,  both  over  age  and  slow  in  progress.  This  is  the  group  which 
constitutes  the  greatest  problem  in  the  administration  of  the  school, 
and  will  later  constitute  the  greatest  problem  for  society.  We  have 
found  the  group  now,  in  the  first  grade.  What  is  the  school — what 
is  society  going  to  do  for  it? 


Table  No.  24  —  To  Show  Causes  of  Retardatioi 


Tr.'s 

Time 

No. 

Age 

Mental 

I.  Q. 

School 

Est.of 

Gr. 

in 

Nat. 

Sex 

Age 

Work 

Intel. 

School 

.58 

7-11 

6-0 

76 

3 

4 

L 

ft 

S 

b 

68 

7-10 

5-4 

68 

4 

4 

L 

I 

S 

g 

5  entered 

73 

9-8 

5-11 

61 

5 

5 

L 

1 

S 

b 

late. 

106 

7-9 

4-6 

58 

5 

4— 

L 

i 

p 

b 

119 

7-7 

7-6 

99 

3 

3 

H 

i 

p 

g 

21 

8-2 

6-8 

81.5 

4 

4 

L. 

2 

S 

b 

32 

8-0 

6-0 

75 

3 

4 

H 

1| 

A 

b 

33 

7-7 

5-4 

70.3 

5 

5 

L 

H 

P 

b 

35 

10-0 

5-1 

51 

5 

5 

H 

3£ 

A 

g 

36 

10-1 

4-6 

45 

5 

5 

L 

3J 

A 

b 

37 

11-0 

6-10 

62 

3 

3 

H 

4 

A 

b 

48 

8-3 

6-10 

82 

3 

4 

H 

2i 

S 

g 

55 

8-9 

7-0 

80 

4 

4 

H 

3 

S 

b 

18  show  slow 

59 

7-9 

5-8 

75 

4 

4 

L 

li 

S 

g 

progress  ,   but 

62 

8-10 

6-4 

72 

3 

4 

H 

2i 

I 

g 

normal  en- 

64 

8-4 

5-10 

70 

5 

4 

L 

2 

I 

b 

trance. 

66 

9-10 

6-9 

69 

3 

4 

H 

34 

S 

g 

88 

8-2 

7-6 

91.7 

2— 

3 

L 

2 

S 

b 

93 

8-4 

7-0 

84.2 

3 

4 

L 

3 

S 

g 

97 

8-5 

6-8 

79.5 

4 

4— 

L 

2 

I 

b 

98 

8-0 

6-4 

79 

4 

4— 

L 

2 

p 

b 

99 

7-7 

5-8 

75 

3— 

4 

L 

2 

p 

g 

146 

9-1 

7-2 

79 

3 

4 

L 

21 

p 

b 

76 

10-5 

5-7 

54 

5 

5 

H 

2J 

S 

b 

89 

7-10 

7-2 

91.4 

3 

3 

L 

1 

p 

g 

100 

7-11 

5-10 

73.7 

4 

4 

L 

1 

S 

b 

102 

9-3 

6-8 

72 

3 

4 

L 

2 

S 

g 

105 

7-8 

5-0 

65 

3 

4 

L 

1 

p 

g 

107 

10-6 

5-10 

56 

3 

5 

L 

1 

p 

g 

10  show  both 

142 

7-9 

7-6 

97 

3 

4 

L 

1 

A 

g 

late  entrance 

144 

8-0 

7-0 

88 

2 

3 

Jj 

1 

A 

b 

and  slow 

32J 

8-6 

6-4 

74.5 

4 

4 

H 

ii 

I 

b 

progress. 

70 

10-1 

6-6 

66 

3 

4 

H 

2 

S 

b 

Chapter  IV 

TIME,   ENERGY,   AND  MONEY  LOST  UNLESS  ADJUSTMENT   IS 
MADE  ACCORDING  TO  INDIVIDUAL  DIFFERENCES 

What  lessons  are  to  be  drawn  from  the  analysis  of  the  individ- 
ual differences  set  forth  in  Chapters  II  and  III?  The  average  teacher 
has  rather  a  set  task  before  her.  Thirty  or  forty  pupils  are  placed 
in  her  room;  she  is  given  a  course  of  study  often  rigid  and  definite 
in  requirements,  and  a  certain  term  in  which  to  work.  She  is  ex- 
pected to  have  at  least  a  very  large  percentage  of  her  pupils  master 


Educational  Number,  1917  27 


the  required  work  in  the  lequired  time.  If  she  succeeds,  she  is 
heralded  as  a  successful  teacher.  If  she  fails,  very  few  people,- either 
patrons  or  school  men,  try  to  discover  whether  or  not  the  failure  is 
due  to  the  quality  of  the  clay  with  which  she  works.  (Compare  room 
B  with  rooms  D  and  E.)  This  is  grossly  unfair  to  the  teacher  and 
usually  results  in  gross  injustice  to  the  pupils.  Seldom  is  any  prem- 
ium placed  upon  the  ability  and  the  skill  necessary  to  recognize  and 
handle  properly  individual  differences.  The  result  is  a  deadening, 
and  dull  uniformity  produced  by  the  loss  of  individual  effort  of  both 
teachers  and  pupils. 

This  will  continue  until  the  school  administration  assists  the 
teacher,  in  a  scientific  manner,  to  a  better  grouping  of  her  children 
with  reference  to  ability,  and  arranges  for  the  assignment  of  work 
better  suited  to  the  needs  and  the  abilities  of  the  individual  children. 

Thorndike  says:  "No  one  unless  he  were  himself  an  idiot  in 
the  trait  of  common  sense,  would  train  a  genius  and  an  idiot  alike 
or  expect  them  to  develop  alike."  Does  not  the  same  principle  hold 
true  with  reference  to  the  training  of  the  very  superior  and  the  very 
inferior  minds?  The  children  who  are  very  superior  to  the  average 
are  not  systematically  given  special  attention  in  our  schools,  altho 
in  a  few  places  systems  of  rapid  promotion  have  been  inaugurated. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  normal  and  the  bright  children  are  the  ones 
who  can  profit  most  by  special  attention.  Why  should  we  spend 
more  time,  effort  and  money  in  providing  instruction  for  the  so-called 
"ungraded"  room  for  the  dull  or  defective  children  than  we  do  for 
the  bright?  We  employ  the  most  thoroly  trained,  successful  teach- 
ers in  our  efforts  to  bring  these  dull  children  up  toward  normal 
ability,  realizing  all  the  time  that  very  few,  if  any,  will  really  reach 
that  mark.  I  would  not  minimize  the  importance  of  this  work,  but 
if  our  public  school  system  is  to  survive,  we  must  demand  and  get 
this  same  sort  of  special  attention  for  the  normal,  for  the  bright, 
and  for  the  dull  children. 

The  presence  in  the  same  class  of  the  greatly  retarded,  and 
the  defective  child  is  a  hindrance  to  the  progress  of  the  normal  and 
the  bright,  is  an  injustice  to  the  teacher,  and  is  of  little,  if  any,  value 
to  the  retarded  child  himself,  for  the  training  is  not  adapted  to  his 
needs.  As  patrons  of  the  schools  come  more  fully  to  realize  these 
facts  the  schools  must  either  change  their  plans  of  work,  or  public 
interest  and  public  support  will  diminish.  It  is  not  a  class  problem, 
but  for  all  classes  and  grades  the  problem  is  the  same — to  determine 
the  child's  mental  capacity  and  to  adapt  his  environment  and  train- 
ing to  that  capacity.  Unless  individual  differences  are  taken  into 
consideration  and  allowances  made,  there  is  an  immense  waste  of 
time  and  energy  of  both  teachers  and  pupils,  and  public  money  ap- 
propriated for  education  fails  to  earn  its  face  value. 


28  The  Normal  Seminar 

"Plainly  past  efforts  made  at  school  grading  fail  to  give  groups 
of  children  of  homogeneous  mental  ability.  For  lack  of  knowledge 
of  their  raw  material  teachers  and  school  administrators  are  blun- 
dering along  in  the  dark."* 


Chapter  V 

THE    PROBLEMS    OF    SCHOOL.   ADMINISTRATION    DIRECTLY 
AFFECTED  BY  MENTAL   TESTING 

Mental  testing  should  (a)  assist  in  the  adjustment  of  a  flexible 
course  of  study;  (b)  aid  in  classification,  segregation  and  promo- 
tion; (c)  aid  in  discipline;  (d)  assist  in  the  elimination  of  those 
mentally  unfit  for  school  work. 

If  one  glances  at  table  No.  7  which  reproduces  a  cross  section 
of  the  quality  of  raw  material  furnished  to  the  teachers  of  the  five 
respective  school  rooms,  he  cannot  help  realizing  that  the  problems 
of  education  in  these  five  rooms  are  vastly  different.  Yet  these  con- 
ditions could  be  duplicated  in  almost  any  city  system  of  our  country. 
To  put  the  same  course  of  study  and  the  same  standards  of  require- 
ment before  all  these  teachers  and  children  seems  to  me  to  fail  en- 
tirely of  the  true  conception  of  the  meaning  of  public  education  in 
and  for  a  democracy.  Thirteen  of  the  children  in  room  B  are  prob- 
ably feeble-minded  and  twelve  more  are  either  borderzone  or  dull- 
normal  cases.  Only  five  or  six  have  normal  mental  ability.  The 
teacher  in  room  B  is  struggling  with  the  same  course  of  study,  and 
attempting  to  produce  good  citizens  for  the  future  with  the  same 
sort  of  training  and  treatment  as  that  used  by  the  teacher  in  room 
D,  where  thirteen  of  the  pupils  are  superior  and  most  of  the  rest 
are  normal  in  mental  ability.  Is  it  just  to  any  one  concerned — chil- 
dren, teachers,  taxpayers,  or  the  future  state  of  society — that  these 
be  given  the  same  course  of  study  or  that  the  effort  be  made  to  teach 
them  to  master  the  same  kind  of  work  in  the  same  length  of  time? 

The  study  of  individual  differences  brings  us  face  to  face  with 
the  necessity  of  a  change  in  our  curriculum.  We  shall  have  educa- 
tion with  equal  opportunities  for  all  only  when  it  is  possible  for  each 
child  to  work  to  the  maximum  of  his  capacity,  and  to  secure  during 
those  years  when  he  is  permitted,  or  required,  to  be  in  school  that 
sort  of  training  which  will  best  fit  him  for  his  life's  work. 

When  the  course  of  study  is  adapted,  mental  testing  will  help 
to  determine  the  classification  of  children  into  groups  according  to 
their  ability  to  master  the  standard  course  of  study,  or  the  one  suited 
to  special  needs.  Those  who  are  superior  should  move  more  rapidly. 
They  should  be  able  to  save  one,  two,  or  three  years  of  time  during 
their  period  of  Elementary  Education.  This  is  the  group  from  which 

*  Term  an. 


Educational  Number,  1917  29 

we  have  a  right  to  expect  the  largest  returns  to  society  for  the  effort 
which  society  has  put  forth  for  its  education.  This  is  the  group  that 
is  just  beginning  to  come  into  its  rights.  Ordinarily  this  group  lias 
not  been  given  the  right  amount  of  work  to  keep  it  busy.  We  can- 
not measure  the  serious  results  to  later  life-power  caused  by  those 
habits  of  idleness,  ease  and  carelessness  that  are  apt  to  be  formed 
by  the  child  who  seldom  is  required  to  exercise  his  maximum  power 
in  the  solution  of  problems  in  early  school  life. 

In  the  1915  Report  of  the  U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Education,  page 
40,  we  find  this  statement:  "The  public  is  becoming  interested  in  the 
super-normal  child,  the  school  is  rapidly  becoming  aware  that  it  has 
neglected  this  problem."  Superintendents  everywhere  are  begin- 
ning to  think  about  schemes  of  promotion  that  will  care  for  the 
gifted  children  as  well  as  for  the  normal  and  for  the  defective. 

The  reader's  attention  is  called  to  an  article  entitled  "Provision 
for  the  Gifted  Child"  in  Educational  Administration  and  Supervision 
for  March,  1917.  This  article  gives  the  findings  of  a  questionnaire 
sent  to  all  the  cities  of  over  8,000  inhabitants  in  the  United  States. 
The  questions  relate  to  the  provisions  for  gifted  children  in  the 
schools  and  the  desirability  for  such  provision.  The  need  is  almost 
universally  recognized,  but  the  number  of  cities  actually  making 
some  provision  is  comparatively  small.  Nearly  all  the  provisions 
classify  under  three  types:  (1)  More  work  for  the  gifted  child — • 
same  length  of  time;  (2)  special  rapidly  moving  class — regular 
course;  (3)  different  course  of  study,  providing  extra  subjects.  Only 
eighteen  cities  are  reported  as  using  psychological  tests  in  the  dis- 
covery and  classification  of  gifted  children.  A  careful  analysis 
proves  that  a  number  of  these  are  using  pedagogical  rather  than 
psychological  tests.  Those  cities  employing  a  psychologist  for  their 
schools  use  him  almost  exclusively  in  the  work  with  defective 
children. 

In  my  opinion  the  mental  test  (psychological,  not  pedagogical) 
is  the  only  sure  means  that  can  be  applied  early  in  the  course  for 
the  detection  of  the  gifted,  the  normal,  or  the  defective  child.  It 
should  be  understood  that  these  groups  will  not  be  absolute  but  will 
shade  imperceptibly  into  one  another. 

The  defective  child  should  be  given  work  suited  to  his  needs. 
It  is  little  short  of  a  crime  to  require  such  a  child  to  attend  school 
and  then  try  to  force  him  to  accomplish  work  he  is  mentally  in- 
capable of  doing,  by  repeating  it  for  one,  two,  three,  or  four  years. 
Rather  give  him  anything,  that  is  legitimate,  which  he  can  do  and 
likes  to  do,  until  he  reaches  that  development  which  will  permit 
him  to  do  something  else.  There  is  no  need  to  try  to  teach  a  child 
to  read  or  write  or  spell  if  he  has  not  a  mentality  capable  of  using 
such  knowledge  to  advantage.  If  he  later  develops  such  mentality 
he  can  then  take  the  training  much  easier  than  now.  By  attempting 
to  force  that  for  which  the  child  is  incapable,  we  are  in  danger  of 


30  The  Normal  Seminar 

developing  a  very  undesirable  attitude  toward  school  and  toward 
life  in  general.  After  all,  habits  and  attitudes  toward  life,  society, 
and  work  are  among  the  most  valuable  acquirements  gained  in 
school. 

The  course  of  study  is  planned  usually  to  fit  the  normal  or 
average  child.  If  the  standards  for  any  particular  grade  or  course 
are  increased  to  fit  the  ability  of  the  superior  child  the  normal  child 
is  apt  to  suffer,  and  the  inferior  child  be  submerged.  There  is  a 
natural  tendency  for  the  teacher  or  superintendent,  unconsciously, 
to  make  a  normal  distribution  of  pupils  in  any  class  based  upon  the 
material  in  hand.  This  is  clearly  shown  in  table  No.  6.  In  room  C 
with  a  median  I.  Q.  of  85  and  a  median  mental  age  of  6-0  we  have 
one  pupil  marked  1  in  accomplishment,  four  marked  2,  fourteen 
marked  3,  ten  marked  4,  and  five  marked  5.  In  room  D  with  a 
median  I.  Q.  of  108.5  and  a  median  mental  age  of  7-2  we  have  two 
pupils  marked  1,  four  marked  2,  thirteen  marked  3,  six  marked  4, 
and  three  marked  5.  The  distribution  of  marks  in  the  two  rooms 
is  almost  identical,  whereas,  there  is  an  average  difference  of  more 
than  one  year  in  mental  age  in  favor  of  room  D,  in  addition  to  an 
average  difference  of  23.5  points  of  I.  Q.  in  favor  of  room  D.  Such 
a  difference  is  very  great. 

If  the  pupils  of  room  D  were  transferred  to  the  teacher  of  room 
C  with  her  present  standards  of  work,  she  would  advance  them  one- 
half  grade  or,  possibly,  a  whole  grade  and  give  them  the  same  marks 
which  they  are  now  receiving.  To  put  it  in  another  way,  if  the 
pupils  of  room  C  should  enter  the  class  in  room  D,  most  of  them 
would  be  hopelessly  behind  and  would  have  to  repeat  the  next  term's 
work.  Evidently  the  standards  of  either  room  C  or  of  room  D  are 
in  error.  By  the  use  of  mental  tests  in  connection  with  the  large 
number  of  pedagogical  tests  that  are  now  standardized,  such  dis- 
crepancies in  standards  of  work  as  these  can  easily  be  removed.  A 
pupil  who  can  do  standard  work  in  one  school  should  be  able  to  do 
standard  work  of  the  same  grade  in  another  school  in  any  part  of 
the  country. 

For  the  course  of  study  for  the  first  grade  to  be  made  so  hard 
that  normal  children  of  7  year  mental  level  can  not  succeed  in  pass- 
ing it,  would  appear  unfair  to  such  children  who  fail.  The  task  set 
for  them  would  be  beyond  their  ability.  For  a  normal  child  to  at- 
tend school  regularly  under  fairly  normal  conditions  and  not  be 
able  to  finish  his  Elementary  School  life  on  schedule  time  simply 
means  the  subtracting  of  the  amount  of  time  lost  from  his  later 
educational  training,  from  his  apprenticeship  in  business,  or  from 
his  period  of  earning  power. 

No  matter  to  what  group  the  child  belongs,  the  standards  of  the 
school  set  the  pace  for  his  advancement.  Should  this  pace  be  set 
for  the  bright  child,  for  the  average,  for  the  dull,  or  for  all  these? 
A  very  important  question  for  educators  to  raise  in  requiring  any 
child  to  repeat  his  work  is,  Will  repetition  produce  the  most  de- 
sirable result? 


Educational  Number,  1917  31 

Mental  testing  should  assist  in  the  discipline  of  the  school  thru 
the  fact  that  it  makes  possible  the  grouping  of  children  according  to 
their  ability.  Success  means  interest  and  interest  removes-many  of 
the  causes  of  trouble.  For  the  same  reason  it  should  make  happier 
children  and  happier  teachers.  Greater  efficiency  from  both  sides 
should  result. 

Finally  mental  testing  should  assist  in  the  elimination  from  the 
school  of  those  children  who  are  so  immature,  or  so  low  in  mental 
level  that  it  is  not  at  all  in  the  province  of  the  school  to  struggle 
with  their  instruction  with  groups  of  other  children. 


Chapter  VI 
DIAGNOSIS  AND  PREDICTIONS  FOR  EACH  CHILD  TESTED 

In  order  to  see  how  personal  traits  correlate  with  intelligence 
each  teacher  was  asked  to  give  a  careful  rating  of  her  pupils  on  a 
certain  24  personal  traits  (see  Chapter  I  for  description).  These 
ratings  were  to  be  independent  from  the  former  ratings  on  school 
work  and  intelligence.  We  planned  to  have  the  influence  of  those 
ratings  as  far  removed  as  possible  from  these.  All  pupils  were  first 
rated  on  one  trait.  Then  all  were  rated  on  the  second  trait,  then  the 
third,  etc.  The  purpose  of  this  was  to  prevent  any  tendency  on  the 
part  of  the  teacher  to  give  a  child  a  rating  and  then  follow  that 
same  level  for  that  child  thruout  the  list  of  traits.  In  the  way  the 
ratings  were  made  we  feel  that  this  tendency  is  almost  entirely 
removed. 

Correlations  were  made  between  the  ratings  of  each  trait  and 
the  I.  Q.'s  for  147  of  the  children.  (Thru  error  three  of  the  children 
were  not  rated.)  These  correlations  range  from  Sense  of  Humor 
.582  as  the  highest,  to  Speed  .281  as  the  lowest,  all  being  positive 
correlations.  With  half  or  more  of  the  traits  the  correlations  are 
reasonably  high,  with  the  rest  they  are  fair.  The  rating  for  any  one 
trait,  therefore,  is  apt  to  bear  a  positive  relation  to  the  intelligence 
of  that  child.  The  curve  or  average  rating  on  all  24  of  the  personal 
traits  for  any  one  child,  should  be  a  very  strong  index  to  that  child's 
intelligence  level. 

Such  a  curve  was  plotted  for  each  of  the  150  children.  This 
curve  with  the  I.  Q.  and  mental  age  was  made  the  basis  for  diagnos- 
ing each  child  with  reference  to  the  question  "What  will  result  from 
the  next  four  years  of  school  work?" 

(The  curves  and  tables  containing  the  predictions  for  each 
child  are  so  complex  and  so  extensive  that  it  is  not  practical  to  print 
them  in  this  report.  They  can  be  found  in  the  original  thesis  in  the 
Stanford  University  Library.) 

Following  is  a  table  showing  the  order  of  personal  traits  by 
rank  of  their  correlation  with  the  I.  Q.'s: 


The  Normal  Seminar 


Trait  Correlation 

(Pearson) 

1  Sense  of  Humor 582 

2  Power  to  Give  Sustained  Attention 539 

3  Persistence     534 

4  Initiative    530 

5  Accuracy    525 

6  Will   Power    500 

7  Conscientiousness    476 

8  Social  Adaptability 474 

9  Leadership    441 

10  Personal  Appearance 440 

11  Cheerfulness    432 

12  Cooperation    430 

13  Physical  Self-Control 423 

14  Industry    408 

15  Courage     390 

16  Dependability    378 

17  Talkativeness    373 

18  Intellectual   Modesty    345 

19  Obedience    345 

20  Popularity  among-   Fellows 342 

21  Evenness   of   Temper 315 

22  Emotional  Self-Control 295 

23  Unselfishness 290 

24  Speed    281 

SUMMARY 

The  mental  testing  of  children  in  five  first  grade  rooms  leads  us- 
to  the  following  conclusions: 

1.  The  variations  in  mental  age  are  great,  ranging  from  three 
years  to  eleven  years. 

2.  The  variations  in  mental  level  range  from  that  of  the  im- 
becile to  that  of  the  very  superior  (45  I.  Q.  to  145  I.  Q.). 

3.  The  eight-year-old  dull  pupil  (I.  Q.  75)  does  not  do  quite  as 
well  in  his  school  work   (rated  by  the  teacher)   as  the  six-year-old 
normal  pupil    (I.  Q.  100). 

4.  Mental  age  has  a  high  correlation   (.75)    with  school  suc- 
cess as  rated  by  the  teacher. 

5.  The  child  below   six-year   mental   age   seldom   succeeds   in 
first  grade  work,  unless  he  is  either  over  age,  or  is  repeating,   or 
both. 

6.  Intelligence  has  a  fairly  high  correlation  (.48),  with  social 
status. 

7.  The  different  nationality  groups,  here  studied,  show  differ- 
ent   median    mental    levels.      Further    investigation    should    show 
whether  these  differences  are  due  to  nationality,  social  status,  suit- 
ability of  the  tests,  or  to  other  causes. 

8.  As  rated  by  the  teacher,  boys  are  less  capable  in  accomplish- 
ment of  school  work  than  are  girls  of  equal  mentality. 

9.  The  principal  cause  of  retardation  in  the  first  grade  is  low 
mentality. 

10.  If  our  public  schools  are  truly  to  educate  all  the  children, 
they  must  take  into  account  the  individual  differences  in  children 
and  must  make  provision  for  the  same  in  gradation,  promotion,  and 
adaptation  of  the  course  of  study. 

11.  Mental    testing    should    become    a    fundamental    part    of 
school  administration. 


I     Syracuse.  N.Y. 
PAT.  JAM.  2 1,1 908 


' 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
Sexpi ration  of  loan  period. 


V  13 


